The Education Gadfly Weekly

The bad news from the latest Nation’s Report Card has us analysts wearing out our thesauruses. Gloomy, dismal, a bloodbath…no negative seems overwrought for what we saw the other week, especially for our lowest-performing students. For example, since 2013, the start of our “Achievement Recession,” eighth grade reading scores for students at the 10th percentile have dropped by ten points. Ten points! That’s the equivalent of an entire grade level. The bottom seems to be falling out.

The good news, such as it is, is that a handful of states managed to make gains on the National Assessment, or at least stand still, even as their peers went backwards. Let’s take a closer look at what they accomplished, with a particular focus on the lowest-performing students.

How do you spell progress? D-C and M-I-S-S-I-S-S-I-P-P-I

Since 2013, the only two jurisdictions that made any statistically significant progress for their lowest performing students in either reading or math were D.C. and Mississippi. And even then, it was only for fourth graders. (In both cases, eighth graders were flat in reading and down in math.) Still, considering how bad the news was for almost everyone else, these contrarian trends are well worth celebrating.

What may explain D.C. and Mississippi? As I wrote on NAEP Day:

Washington, D.C., deserves much of the attention today, given its ability to demonstrate sustained and significant progress over time, and its decade-plus commitment to fundamental reform. Yet even D.C. comes with a demographic asterisk, given the rapidly changing population of the nation’s capital. It’s also true that, in many ways, the Great Recession skipped D.C.; let me encourage analysts in coming days to figure out how much credit should go to the schools and how much belongs to economic and social conditions.

There’s no need to caveat the other star of this year’s release, Mississippi. For a decade now, the long-suffering Magnolia State has been on an upward trajectory, especially in reading. That appears to be no coincidence. It has one of the very best early-literacy initiatives in the country, and has been quietly and methodically implementing the Common Core standards without much commotion.

Demography is not destiny

So only in D.C. and Mississippi have low achievers made gains as of late. But given the difficult national landscape, several other states deserve credit for maintaining their scores in the face of adversity. That’s because, as I have been arguing, there’s good reason to believe that the devastating impacts of the Great Recession—on school spending and families—are partly to blame for the big declines. (More on other possibilities below.)

Now let’s look for states that got hammered by the Great Recession—as measured by changes in their unemployment rates from 2007 to 2010—yet still managed to keep achievement steady. We’ll focus here on fourth grade scores through 2019, the most recent of which reflect students who were “born into” the recession.

Gladly we can find a handful of states worthy of recognition—for keeping their scores from declining even though they faced above-average increases in unemployment, perhaps indicating that their policies or practices have been working. Namely:

• Nevada, California, Michigan, Rhode Island, Idaho, Illinois, South Carolina, and Tennessee in both reading and math
• Arizona, North Carolina, and Oregon in reading
• Florida, Alabama, and Georgia in math

Figure 1: Statistically significant changes in fourth grade scale scores at the 10th percentile, 2013–19, sorted by change in unemployment rate, 2007–10
Note: Cells in green indicate statistically significant positive changes; cells in yellow indicate statistically significant negative changes; and blank cells indicate no statistically significant changes.

States that stretched the school dollar

Next let’s look at those states whose schools suffered through significant spending reductions but didn’t allow achievement to go backwards for their lowest performers. We’ll consider the magnitude of spending cuts back in the lean years of 2010 through 2013, and the performance at the eighth grade level—students who are old enough to have attended school during those trying times.

There’s not a ton of good news, but schools in several states experienced cuts that were harsher than the national average and still managed to keep their test scores steady, perhaps because of effective policies, practices, or reforms. Namely:

• Wisconsin in both reading and math
• Arizona, West Virginia, D.C., Oklahoma, and Mississippi in reading
• Georgia, Florida, Utah, Kansas, and Michigan in math

Figure Two: Statistically significant changes in eighth grade scale scores at the 10th Percentile, 2013–19, sorted by change in per-pupil spending, 2010–13
Note: Cells in green indicate statistically significant positive changes; cells in yellow indicate statistically significant negative changes; and blank cells indicate no statistically significant changes.

If you’re keeping count, here’s who deserves to be in the winner’s circle along with D.C. and Mississippi: Nevada, which arguably suffered the worst effects of the Great Recession, yet managed to hold steady in fourth grade reading and math achievement; Arizona, whose schools lived through some of the most dramatic spending cuts of the early 2010s, and a terrible economy to boot, and yet avoided declines in fourth and eighth grade reading; and Idaho, which also got hammered by high unemployment and big spending cuts, but stayed flat in three of four categories.

There will be blood

Finally, let’s finish with a double headscratcher: North Dakota and Alaska. With their vast oil reserves and other natural resources, they escaped the Great Recession relatively unscathed. Unemployment in Alaska grew less than 2 percent in the aftermath of the recession, in North Dakota less than 1 percent. Both states also increased per-pupil spending during the leanest years. Yet in both cases, achievement of their lowest-performing students is down across the board, in grades four and eight, in reading and in math.

The New England states of New Hampshire and Vermont also got through the recession OK, yet they saw declines almost across the board, too.

—

So something appears to be driving down the achievement of the lowest-performing students virtually everywhere, even in places whose economies weathered the storm of the Great Recession quite well. What is it? A reduction in accountability pressure? A shift in focus away from low-performers? Common Core? (Though how to explain the declines in non-Common Core states?) Screen time, phones, and social media? The opioid epidemic? Let the quest for answers continue.

A Special thanks to research intern Pedro Enamorado for contributing to this post.

The past decade’s shift to significantly higher academic standards and more rigorous assessments means that many more students are now far below grade-level expectations. In recent months and years, there’s been much debate about how best to help such students catch up.

To oversimplify a bit, on one side are educators and advocates who believe that all students can benefit from spending most of their time working on grade-level material. On the other side are those who believe that all students can benefit from “personalization” or “differentiation”—strategies that meet them where they are and then accelerate their progress over time. This is in part a pedagogical debate, but it has implications for school and grade organization, pupil retention, accountability, and more.

This year’s Wonkathon tackles these issues head-on. We asked contributors to address this fundamental and challenging question: What’s the best way to help students who are several grade levels behind?

We received nineteen submissions from policy experts and education practitioners. As expected, there were a wide range of solutions offered, and no two were exactly alike. But there were some common sentiments that emerged.

1. Should we “meet students where they are” or “teach them grade-level content”? Why not both?

Many wonks found a way to thread the needle between individualized student growth and grade-level proficiency for all. Methods for doing so included using learning models that integrate personalized needs and on-grade-level mastery,[1] and providing meaningful learning experiences and instructional materials that engage students.[2] Because of the nature of this big-picture, long-term approach, those in this camp tended to address multiple areas for potential improvement: teaching practices, teacher development, instructional materials, school culture, assessment, and accountability.

2. If you had to choose one, though, teach students grade-level content

For others, giving students grade-level work and materials came out on top. Specifically, authors proposed focusing on demanding curricula,[3] collecting information on students’ experiences in the classroom,[4] and using particular instructional techniques for below-grade-level readers[5]—all, of course, with high-quality, grade-level content.

3. Before we can do anything, we need to build students’ knowledge and assess them appropriately

For students who are several grade levels behind in reading, a few participants suggested building students’ foundational knowledge and giving them tests tied to this knowledge. Approaches for doing so included allowing time for students to pursue personal topics of interest and grow their foundational skills,[6] providing complex subject matter through listening and differentiated instruction through writing tasks,[7] and ensuring that assessments are aligned with what has been taught in the classroom.[8] They also emphasized the well-documented importance of building students’ background knowledge of the world around them to support reading comprehension.

4. Intervene sooner rather than later—and get parents involved

Several authors discussed the need to intervene quickly and communicate regularly with parents. One proposed using a tool that enables teachers to engage with parents in their home languages.[9] Another suggested straightforward, face-to-face conversations between administrators, teachers, and parents about their students’ progress.[10] And another recommended multiple research-based strategies to support home and school life: Individualized Education Plans (IEPs), extended days, daily journaling, and consistent feedback to parents.[11]

5. But wait! Data can help

Participants also suggested aggregating and examining student data over many years to help diagnose causes of lagging achievement[12] and using a “Multi-Tiered System of Supports”—a data-driven method of structuring and organizing a school’s approach to meeting students’ needs.[13]

6. Let's talk about what teachers can do and how we can support them

Finally, some wonks concentrated on the role of teachers and proposed strategies to improve professional learning and development,[14] as well as finding and using teaching practices that best support the development of students who are behind.[15]

—

These nineteen submissions differ in their approaches, but they ultimately agree on one important point: It’s vital that we get more students achieving at or above their grade-level. So what’s the best way to do that? Should we focus on classroom content, instructional materials, parents, data, teachers, or something else? You be the judge by taking our online survey or liking your favorite post on our Twitter thread. The submission with the most votes will be deemed 2019’s “Wisest Wonk.” May their solution be a boon for students who are several grade levels behind.

[1] Beyond the binary: We can foster equity in both opportunity and outcomes, by Abby Javurek

Tailored paths that can combine pre-, on-, and post-grade skills are the solution for students below grade level in math, by Joel Rose

Rigor or personalized learning? Just ask Dr. Seuss., by Jessica Shopoff

[2] Follow schools' leads to embrace personalized learning and academic rigor, by Gwen Baker, Lauren Schwartze, and Bonnie O’Keefe

Closing student achievement gaps requires both rigorous grade-level work and personalized learning, by Britt Neuhaus

[3] Staying on the shelf: Why rigorous new curricula aren't being used, by David Steiner

[4] To help students who are behind, find out if their assignments match their goals, by Daniel Weisberg

[5] From Play-doh to Plato: All students need to grapple with grade-level text, by Harriett Janetos

[6] If we want to accelerate student learning, we need to redesign the school day, by David Liben and Meredith Liben

[7] To help students students who are several "grade levels" behind in reading, focus on building—and assessing—students' knowledge, by Natalie Wexler

[8] To ensure success for all students, state assessment makers must be learners, too, by Jessica Baghian

[9] Engaging families, early and often, is the best way to help students who are several grade levels behind, by Vidya Sundaram and Elisabeth O’Bryon

[10] Parent communication, not data, is the problem when it comes to below-grade-level students, by Lisa Murdock

[11] To help students who are several grade levels behind, implement IEPs in elementary and middle school, by Charles Ogundimu

[12] The best way to help students who are several grade levels behind is to do a better job of following their progress, or lack of it, in the long term, by Barbara Gottschalk

[13] Driving learning for all students: A framework for Multi-Tiered Systems of Support, by Bonnie Hain and Laura Slover

[14] Fostering teacher quality and expertise is the best way to help students who are several grade levels behind, by Candice McQueen

Teachers and curricula aren't enough for below-grade-level standards. They also require scalable strategies tailored to their needs, by Jessica Varevice

[15] Why struggling students remain below grade level, and how to help them, by Michael Goldstein

Every year on Veterans Day, we show our gratitude to the men and women who have served our country in uniform. We reach out to a loved one who has served, we thank a soldier in the airport, or we honor them through a variety of free meals. As generous and kind as these offers of appreciation are, it’s time that we show our gratitude to veterans in a new way, that we give them a place of belonging when they return home, a new mission: teaching our children in our schools.

Veteran unemployment rates are rising. For those who do find jobs, they are often undervalued, with a recent study showing that only 17 percent of employers consider veterans as valuable assets in the workplace. What’s even more alarming is the effect this situation is having on their well-being. According to the 2019 National Veteran Suicide Prevention Report, there have been over 6,000 veteran suicides every year from 2008 to 2017, resulting in a suicide rate that is one and a half times that of civilians. Our service members are returning home without a sense of belonging in their communities and without mission-driven careers. This tragedy is a national emergency, and part of its solution could help to solve another one of our nation’s most urgent issues—the sad state of our education system.

America’s schools are failing our children. The 2019 Nation’s Report Card suggests that student achievement has stayed disturbingly low for years, demonstrating the need for vast improvement throughout our country. The wide opportunity gap between students from different socioeconomic backgrounds proves once again that the zip code in which they live has an unjustly large effect on their futures. Once seen as the cornerstone of our society, the American education system is producing high school graduates who are dangerously unprepared for college and the workplace. They lack the necessary skills and knowledge to participate as responsible citizens in a democracy, contributing to the increased political polarization and decreased American pride found in our country. And as school shootings have plagued our country in recent years, parents have shown little confidence in their children being safe in schools. Our education system needs teachers who can address these concerns threatening our nation. We need veterans in the classroom.

Veterans hold a variety of unmatched skills that makes them the kind of excellent educators our school districts across the country need. As teacher shortages and turnover rates hinder the education system nationally, there is a growing need for teachers who display a level of grit and perseverance that our veterans have proven to possess. Moreover, as our country and schools become more diverse in the years to come, and as more research shows that students of color benefit from teachers of color, it is imperative to find educators who represent a wide range of backgrounds—as veterans do. Add in the experience they have in leading and collaborating with others and in being committed to a mission that is bigger than themselves, and it is easy to see why prominent organizations such as Teach For America and schools like Success Academy have made hiring veterans a priority.

The benefits to schools would be immediate and continuous, but just as importantly, the veterans would benefit, too. The classroom can be the place of belonging that these men and women, who have sacrificed so much for our country, need when they retire from the military. It can create a new sense of purpose in their communities as they struggle to transition back to civilian life. For a veteran standing in front of a classroom, with the eyes of our nation’s children on them, they will have a new mission: providing the high-quality education that all children in America deserve.

Stereotype threat is when people inadvertently conform to negative stereotypes about a group they are in, for example their race or gender. A recent meta-analysis on the effects of stereotype threat has important implications for equity in the education system, the validity of standardized tests, and for teacher preparation.

Researchers from the University of Minnesota—Twin Cities analyzed the results of 212 lab experiments of the effect of stereotype threat on test scores. Although numerous studies have shown that, for example, telling female students that females generally perform worse on the a test immediately before they take it makes them do worse than if they take the test with no advance priming or prompting, these researchers divide the studies into those that are more and less realistic to test-takers.

They find that the effects of stereotype threat are much lower, even nonexistent, under conditions that are most realistic for actual students, and that the best studies—for example, those with the largest sample sizes—had the smallest impact, including null effects in some cases. So that idea about telling students before they take a test that their group generally underperforms on that type of test? No actual teacher would ever do that. The more practical scenario, where, for example, a student fills out some demographic information about themselves before taking a test, has, at worst, a very small negative effect.

The researchers also looked at the impact of stereotype threat in higher-stakes environments, like the SAT, where we would be most worried that it could invalidate the results of tests. When they looked just at studies where participants were given cash incentives for performance on the exam—which obviously makes participants take the experiment more seriously—there was no clear effect of stereotype threat at all.

The researchers conclude that the burden of proof should shift to those who think that stereotype threat has any substantial effect on standardized test takers, although, of course, the implications of this research go well beyond just standardized tests.

SOURCE: Oren R. Shewach et al., “Stereotype threat effects in settings with features likely versus unlikely in operational test settings: A meta-analysis,” Journal of Applied Psychology (May 2019).

What can be done to rescue failing schools? This perennial question is facing districts across the nation, from Houston to Providence. What’s worse is that persistently underperforming schools tend to be concentrated in urban, high-poverty areas and affect students of color the most. The Obama Administration even devoted billions of federal dollars towards supporting turnaround efforts in the last decade, but a 2017 Institute of Education Sciences report found that it bore little fruit. This led Professors Jennifer B. Ayscue and Genevieve Siegel-Hawley to conduct their recently published case study on the effectiveness of using federal funds to create magnet programs designed to increase the diversity and achievement of struggling schools.

They focus on recipients of the federal Magnet Schools Assistance Program (MSAP), which operated under the School Improvement Grants (SIG) framework. MSAP’s goals were to promote desegregation in public schools, offer innovative educational methods that increase choice, and offer students challenging academic content in federally-funded magnet programs created within schools identified as being in need of turn-around. These magnet programs existed within the otherwise common schools, and only a subset of students participated in them. The researchers note that while most turn-around programs under SIG relied on funding charters, this one had an explicit focus on desegregating traditional public schools.

Ayscue and Siegel-Hawley selected three schools on which to do a case study. Each of these met four criteria: (1) they were identified by the federal government as requiring improvement, restructuring, or corrective action under No Child Left Behind; (2) they received MSAP funds and used them to create a magnet program inside their buildings that a subset of students would participate in; (3) they increased the diversity of their entire schools, not just in their magnet programs, as determined by district-level enrollment data mapped against district trends; and (4) they increased math and reading achievement according to self-reported MSAP documentation, again in the entire school, not just in their magnet programs.

The three they selected—Maple (Pre-K–8), Palm (6–8), and Bayside (K–8) (the authors don’t further identify them)—reduced segregation by at least 10 percent, and improved achievement in one or both subjects. Maple implemented an environmental sciences magnet program, and saw schoolwide reading and math achievement improve overall (though Hispanic students did worse in math) and its white and Asian enrollment increase from 8 to 33 percent. Palm centered its magnet program around arts and technology, and also saw improvements in both subjects (though Hispanic outcomes remained flat) and its white and Asian enrollment jump from 15 to 33 percent. And at Bayside, which adopted an International Baccalaureate (IB) program for its magnet, math and reading achievement increased overall and all subgroups saw math gains (but, similar to the other two schools, the reading scores of Hispanic students stayed flat), and its white and Asian enrollment went from 17 to 40 percent.

Ayscue and Siegel-Hawley’s team then attempted to draw lessons from the three schools that could be useful to others, examining whether there were any broad, shared themes that may have contributed to their success, as well as any shared challenges. They used, among other information, the results of focus groups, semi-structured interviews with administrators, teachers, and parents, and unstructured observations during class, lunch, and recess. They identified two common characteristics that facilitated greater diversity and achievement, and a set of common challenges.

They found that the focus of the magnet programs, their recruitment efforts, and lottery-based competitiveness improved family interest and school enrollment. For instance, Maple hired a full-time marketing staff person and went from 150 to 600 students, and Bayside found that the rigor and rarity of the IB program was a main attraction for white families.

Second, each made notable changes to their school cultures and instructional practices. They, for example, mixed magnet and not-magnet students in classes and group activities, and Bayside hired all new teachers for their IB program and invested heavily in teacher training.

Finally, all three schools struggled to get teachers to buy in to new methods, to get parents of color involved, and to equitably identify new students as gifted. Black and Hispanic parents felt there weren’t enough peers of color at PTA meetings, and principals reported more tension with teachers over the school vision, with many retiring early or leaving the school. Bayside and Palm also reported relying on counselor interviews and less on test scores when identifying gifted students of color, but still found they were underrepresented.

The policy takeaway that Ayscue and Siegel-Hawley offer is that districts should consider magnet programs more as a strategy for turn-around rather than closing underperforming schools, which could also improve collaboration between local, state, and federal government to improve outcomes.

The case studies show that educational excellence is attractive to families of every stripe, but also that it requires buy-in from the entire community. They also show that school choice can and should work in multiple ways, and when done right, can increase both diversity and achievement. Nonetheless, further studies are needed to see whether these results are scalable. The changes that transformed these schools’ cultures and made the turn-around efforts successful—e.g., improved data collection, good discipline practices, engaging and challenging magnet programs, etc.—are exceptional and costly, but certainly desirable.

SOURCE: Jennifer B. Ayscue and Genevieve Siegel-Hawley, “Magnets and school turnarounds: Revisiting policies for promoting equitable, diverse schools,” Education Policy Analysis Archives (2019).

On this week’s podcast, Carrie Gillispie, senior analyst in P–12 policy at The Education Trust, joins Mike Petrilli and David Griffith to talk about the state of early childhood education for students of color. On the Research Minute, Amber Northern examines the long-term impacts of special education.

Amber's Research Minute

Briana Ballis and Katelyn Heath, “The Long-Run Impacts of Special Education,” Retrieved from Annenburg Institute at Brown University (November 2019).